The wrong kind of trees…
the right kind of trees-
https://urban-forests.com/miyawaki-method/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akira_Miyawaki
“According to the classical theory of succession initiated by Frederic Clements in the U.S., a young native forest with a multi-layered community would need 150 to 200 years to restore itself on bare soil in Japan, and it would take at least 300 years to do the same in the tropics of Southeast Asia.
Miyawaki extensively tested the method in deforested sites in dry tropical zones in Thailand, alluvial tropical forests in the Brazilian Amazon, and the old Nothofagus forest area in Concepción, Chile.
The forest planted along the Great Wall of China
In 1998, Miyawaki piloted a reforestation program dominated by Quercus mongolica along the Great Wall of China, and gathered 4,000 people to plant 400,000 trees, with the support of the Aeon Environment Foundation and the city of Beijing. The first trees planted by groups of Chinese and Japanese, on areas where the forest had long since gone, grew over 3 m high in 2004 and – except for one part – continued to thrive in 2007.
Miyawaki also contributed to the massive reforestation in China by its government and Chinese citizens in Pudong, Qingdao, Ningbo, and Ma'anshan.
Miyawaki received the 2006 Blue Planet Award for environmental conservation.[3]
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2022/05/26/carbon-markets-are-going-global
Remember the housing crisis? When we took people’s mortgages, packed them together as junk bonds, rebranded them as triple A ratings and dumped them on people who believed the system wasn’t broken?
The Big Short
https://youtu.be/vgqG3ITMv1Q?t=8
Well, we’re doing it again with carbon. Instead of making carbon markets to reduce the amount of pollution, we’re just creating a new speculative market. What could go wrong?
“more than 21% of the world’s emissions are covered by some form of carbon pricing, up from 15% in 2020”
“trading on these markets grew by 164% last year, to €760bn ($897bn). The problem is that very few markets work as intended. Of the 64 carbon taxes and emissions-trading systems (etss) that existed in 2021, only a tiny minority, covering 3.8% of emissions, priced the gas above $40 a tonne, which the Carbon Price Leadership Coalition, a group of businesses and governments, estimates as the minimum social cost of carbon (a measure of the damage done to global welfare by increasing emissions). And that may be too generous already: some economists put it at more than $200.”
So, do we want a high price for carbon or a low price?
Darshan Maharaja points out that “carbon” is the wrong word, we should be using carbon dioxide and “trading” is the wrong word, as the governments are issuing these licences.
https://twitter.com/TheophanesRex/status/1533825490494099457?s=20&t=yzlZbrQZ5jfwJHKhXucDPg
and the FT calling for more clarity on trading
https://www.ft.com/content/9b02fcf7-9e04-4b71-ad14-251552d5a78e